Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 687317)

We are so close to that Southern California reference I mentioned in another thread, I can almost taste it.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 687295)

If I'm misreading the above, I apologize...but.....

It doesn't matter at all if the statement was obviously directed at the head coach. What matters is that the rules and mechanics state that you go to the head coach and inform him that his player just committed his fifth foul. If you don't do that, you haven't fulfilled your responsibility; you've completely ignored it. You sureashell are NOT fulfilling your responsibility in any way, shape or form by asking a question at the scorers table. The head coach is not supposed to be anywhere near the scorers table. That's a rule also.

Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 687299)

That's one of the stupidest comments I have read on this board in a long time. So you are a "people person" but can't figure out that switching places is a valid way to calm a volatile situation? That's not much of a "people person". That's more of an "it's all about me person".

And the "Is the sub for 11, he has 5" statement is neither the proper way to handle the situation nor a very good way to communicate. A possible scenario:

tref: "Is the sub for #11, he has 5?"

coach: "What? That kid hasn't even been in the game yet?"

tref: "No, no, no, Coach. Number 11 has 5 fouls and I was wondering if the sub was coming in for number 11."

Coach: "Why didn't you just say that number 11 had five fouls! That's pretty much par for the course with the way you have been calling this game tonight."

Great game management there.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 687332)

You're right, and tref's statement, as I read it, is directed to the coach. If I'm reading it wrong, then I agree with you. However, the point is there's no prescribed wording for notifying the coach, nor is there anything that prevents us from asking the question, "is #5 the sub for #11" prior to stating, "that's 5 on #11."

I guess it seemed obvious to me that tref was simply proposing alternate wording to the notification rather than suggesting we speak to the basketball gods and assume coach hears us.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 687332)

. However, the point is there's no prescribed wording for notifying the coach, nor is there anything that prevents us from asking the question, "is #5 the sub for #11" prior to stating, "that's 5 on #11."

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 687339)

Case book play 2.8.4 lays out the procedure and that's exactly what we train our officials to follow. Asking extraneous questions at the table is completely irrelevant to the recommended prodecure though. Asking a sub at the table whether he's subbing in for a disqualified player is NOT notifying a coach under any stetch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 687337)

. tref offered a perfectly valid way of dealing with the situation.....<font color = red>not just tell the coach #11 has 5</font> but wrap it up into asking if the already present sub is for the player who has just fouled out.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 687340)

If I'm right, tref's question was directed to the head coach.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 687344)

Howinthehell can you be right when tref stated very emphatically that there is no reason to let the coach know that his player just committed his fifth foul? Why would he direct it the head coach if he felt that their was no reason for the head coach to know that? Those were his exact words; i've cited 'em verbatim enough so far in this thread. He also said that he asked the question AT the table. Coachs aren't allowed to be at the table, by rule. Howinthehell can you direct a question to someone who by rule isn't supposed to be anywhere near you?

RIF!

Unfortunately, the rules state the we have to inform the coach when one of his players fouls out. That's NFHS rule 2-8-4. There is nowayinhell that asking anyone anything at the scorers table changes that responsibility.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 687338)

tref's method is killing two birds with one sentence.

A perfectly acceptable way to handle the situation. In fact, it should be encouraged because if that sub is for the fouled-out player, then the game gets moving quicker. if the sub isn't for the fouled-out player, he might "become" the sub for the fouled-out player because the idea is now in the coach's mind.

Originally Posted by tref (Post 687219)

1. I report the foul to the table

2. They inform me that its the 5th.

3. Im <font color = red>AT</font> the table & see a sub there... <font color = red>is no reason to let the coach know its the 5th</font>. Thats why the sub is there!! Asking if the sub is for the player w/ 5 makes more sense to me.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 687347)

For the umpteeth freaking time, Juggs......see above.

He's AT the table, nowhere near the coach. He's asking the question TO the table. The rules say that we HAVE to let the coach know that his player just committed their fifth foul. At no time did tref go down and do that. I have no idea howintheheck either how anyone can assume that the coach even heard the question when the coach isn't supposed to be anywhere near the table, by rule.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 687354)

I know that you know that I follow mechanics properly. As for my local rules interp, you're just trying to paint me with a colour that you know damn well isn't true, so you should just stop that sort of behavior.